“That’s bullshit! These are babies that are being killed. Millions of them. And you need to use your voice to protect them. That’s what a man does. He protects children—his own children, and other children. That’s what it means to be a man.”
This is what Ruben Navarette’s wife told him about his neutrality on the subject of abortion. Navarette is a syndicated journalist who has never written on the topic of abortion, until now. And what prompted the change of heart? The videos. And an angry woman that is close to him.
“After all this, I still consider myself pro-choice, as I have for the last 30 years. I staked out this position during my freshmen year in college. Even then, I understood the abortion debate was a tug-of-war between competing rights—those of the mother versus those of an unborn baby. I sided with the mother. And I tried not to think about the baby….
“I arrived there for a simple reason: Because I’m a man. Many will say that this is not a very good reason, but it is my reason. Lacking the ability to get pregnant, and thus spared what has been for women friends of mine the anguishing decision of whether to stay pregnant, I’ve remained on the sidelines and deferred to the other half of the population.
“Over time, I made refinements—going along with waiting periods and parental notification laws at the state level, and coming out against the barbaric practice known as partial birth abortion.
“As I’ve only realized lately, to be a man, and to declare yourself pro-choice, is to proclaim your neutrality. And, as I’ve only recently been willing to admit, even to myself, that’s another name for “wimping out.”
“At least that’s how my wife sees it. She’s pro-life, and so she’s been tearing into me every time a new video is released. She’s not buying my argument that, as a man, I have to defer to women and trust them to make their own choices about what to do with their bodies. To her, that’s ridiculous—and cowardly.
“You can’t stand on the sidelines, especially now that you’ve seen these videos,” she told me recently. “That’s bullshit! These are babies that are being killed. Millions of them. And you need to use your voice to protect them. That’s what a man does. He protects children—his own children, and other children. That’s what it means to be a man.”
You are washing dishes and your young child walks up behind you and says, “Dad, can I kill it?” What do you have to know before you can answer that question? You have to know what “it” is. If it is a spider you might say, “yes, please, let me help you.” But if it is the neighbor’s cat or his baby brother you have to say no. There are certain things we do not kill
A friend (Josh Brahm) told me this story. And I am sure he got it from someone else. But it is a fitting parable for the abortion issue
Have you noticed that recently there is a bizarre commitment to avoid this question? Some people approach it like it is suspicious package at the airport. As if ignoring the truth will somehow make it go away. The reason is fairly obvious. If we answer this question it based on observation, common experience, and science then the answer is pretty clear, and it comes with a freight train of implications. Unborn babies are just that. Babies that haven’t been born yet. They are indeed human babies. In recent weeks America has been confronted with these uncomfortable facts. They have limbs, livers, kidneys, skulls, hearts with electrical systems, central nervous systems, etc. The exact same kind that other humans have. That is why they are worth so much money.
My family and I watched this video interview (below) with Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards where she answers the question “when does life begin” by saying the question is irrelevant to the work of Planned Parenthood. I guess it isn’t good for business to admit that the organisms that you are planning to kill and sell are both alive and human. Even worse, she says that because there is disagreement on the subject of what constitutes a living human, each woman gets to determine that for herself. I wonder if Cecile would be eager to allow others to make that decision about her. BTW, I will let you in on a secret, having one set of standards for yourself and another set for other people is not good.
By the way, on the issue of trying to deny full humanity to other people, haven’t we learned from history? It isn’t good to believe that someone is 2/3 of a human. “Am I not a man?”
A few thoughts. First of all, this is dodging the issue. This question is definitely relevant, and we definitely know when life begins. My son, a college sophomore who just completed anatomy and physiology in preparation for a nursing major, watched the video and exclaimed, “that’s ridiculous, an unborn child matches all 7 characteristics of life!”
Second, the question of what constitutes a human life is not something we want to allow people to decide for themselves. Historically, this has been the strongest tool of tyrants. Deny the status of human being to your quarry, and you can perpetrate your will in barbaric ways. That has been the story of imperialism.
Let me ask you a question: Does her answer give you confidence that she is engaged in good and honest activities? Or like she is being evasive and trying to hide from inconvenient truths? What is your take on the interview?
I just came across this great book, which was previously a series of lectures by DA Carson called “The God Who is There.” I am not sure if this is a title connection between Francis Schaeffer’s famous book. Anyway, the idea is to take a jet tour of the big story of the Bible in 14 lectures. Carson is a very learned, clear, and informed communicator and these talks are good! I have been challenged and refreshed. Best of all the talks are intended to be accessible to people who do not have a lot of previous bible knowledge.
I found this while looking around for info on this man. I heard D. A. Carson make reference to him as a man who labored for 40 years with only a few people won to Christ, and some of those were martyred.
Here is a link to a great 5 minute video that records some of the experiences of 2 photographers that followed George W. Bush for 8 years. It includes some great photos and a narration from these men with commentary on their perception of the president.